I quite liked the movement style of whoever it was who played Spidey in costume on the '70s series (most likely a stunt double rather than Hammond, except in dialogue scenes). I always found it interesting the way he used head tilts and body language to convey expression in the absence of visible facial features. The wall-crawling, not so much, since it was always slllooowww straight up or down and you could often see the winch at the top of the building. There wasn't much sense of Spidey's acrobatics at all.

Now, if you want to see a live-action '70s Spider-Man that really handles the movements in an interesting way, check out the Japanese Spider-Man series, which should be available for streaming at Marvel.com. That stuntman (or stuntmen?) did a great job of capturing a spiderlike movement style -- which isn't surprising, since some martial arts are about mimicking the movements of animals. (There is something called spider kung fu, but I'm not sure if he was actually using it.) It really felt to me like a plausible way for Spidey to move. Then again, he also did that weird posturing/interpretive-dance thing when he announced himself, like the Power Rangers do (the show was from the same studio that makes the Super Sentai shows that Power Rangers is adapted from), and that is a custom of tokusatsu shows that I have never understood.

And if the masses can't handle a Ditko style Doctor Strange, put the show on HBO. The masses can stick with their CBS procedurals.

Click to expand...

I don't think pay cable would be any more friendly to psychedelia or surrealism. All of their shows tend toward gritty realism (or at least what passes for it).

Click to expand...

I don't really see where something something like that would be out of place on a group of networks that include things like True Blood, Game of Thrones, and Spartacus. True Blood and Game of Thrones did start out a little more realistic, but have got more fantastic as they've gone on.

Click to expand...

I haven't been following Game of Thrones, but True Blood has gone a little trippy from time to time. Doc Strange would be orders of magnitude beyond that, though.

The problem I had with them was that, even as a kid, it seemed to me that the filmmakers were embarrassed by the character's comic-book roots and seemed to determined to minimize the comic-booky elements as much as possible. Hence, no costume, no Red Skull, no Hordes of Hydra, etc. As I recall, they generally avoided calling "Steve" Captain America wherever possible, and only did so sheepishly at best. "Maybe you can be some sort of, er, 'Captain America' or something." That kind of thing.

Compared to the CAPTAIN AMERICA comics I reading at the time, it all seemed rather mundane and timid.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much the problem I've always had with superheroes on TV or in movies-- they mainstream the magic out of them.

By contrast, the DR. STRANGE pilot, despite its limitations, embraced the wilder aspects of the original comics: you had astral travel, visits to strange Ditko-esque dimensions (as much as a limited tv-movie budget would allow), demons being summoned, ageless sorcerers throwing spells at each other, even a fairly accurate recreation of Strange's Sanctum. As opposed to all the other CBS productions of the time, which sometime seemed determined to cram larger-than-life comic book characters into "Barnaby Jones"-sized plots, DR. STRANGE at least tried to capture the feel of the comic book . . . .

Click to expand...

Yeah. No offense to Barnaby Jones, but that describes it perfectly. I don't remember that Dr. Strange movie, though. I wonder if it is on DVD>

The characters, yeah, but they're avoiding any superpowers and going for a more grounded, Nolanesque tone, to all indications. And don't hold your breath for any boxing-glove arrows. This (Green) Arrow kills. (Which strikes me as being unrealistic in the othe direction, since most arrow wounds would be survivable unless they hit a major artery and the victim bled out before the ambulance came.)

Click to expand...

Yes, they're going for a Nolanesque approach, but they're not going as far as Mike Grell's run in the comic books. In Grell's run Green Arrow killed, eschewed trick arrows, stopping wearing a mask after the first few issues, and there were almost no appearances by traditional comic book villains at all. So the TV show is downplaying comic booky elements, but not "as much as possible".

As for Green Arrow's ability to kill with a bow and arrow, he's skilled enough that he can make a kill shot if he so chooses. He's just that good. Whether that's realistic in the real world I don't know, but that's the way it is in Green Arrow's world.

^I'd argue that if he's really that good, he has no legitimate reason to inflict a kill shot. Killing as an unavoidable means of protecting oneself or an innocent is justifiable as a defensive act. Deliberately choosing to kill when you have other options is simply murder.

^^^
There are real world instances where people who are incredibly skilled with guns go for kill shots rather than wounding shots because they have to defend themselves or innocent life and a kill shot is the only way to make absolutely sure of that. Green Arrow could find himself in similar situations.

Well, from what I've read about the series, I'm not convinced that's going to be the situation here. I think they're portraying Oliver more as someone on a mission of revenge, although they will have him confront the emotional consequences of the killing he does. So it sounds to me like this is going to be more a show about an assassin than about someone who only kills when he has no other choice.

At this point, I haven't found the exact date of the Roots rebroadcast, but it certainly seems plausible that Greg Cox is correct. However, I know for a fact that Dr. Strange was broadcast on TV in 1978, because that's the only time I ever saw it.

"Why Remakes Are One Of Our Greatest Achievements As A Civilization?" A bit of hyperbole there. Anyway, his points about folklore, while true, are not applicable to individual creativity. His use of Dracula and Buffy make my point-- Whedon did not name the gang after Harker, van Helsing and the rest, nor did he name Angel after Dracula. He created an original concept (also incorporating the idea of upending the scream queen cliche) to embody his ideas. Or do you think Buffy would have been improved by recycling Bram Stoker's character names?

^And you're still hugely missing the point by thinking that it's about what names you give the characters. Just please try to think about it instead of rejecting it out of hand because it's not what you already believe.

The bulk of the link is devoted to an analogy, which is that variants are to folklore as remake and reboots are to Hollywood movies. The thing is, that analogies are only as compelling as the resemblances between the things analogized. If they really are the same, the analogy essentially becomes an argument from causality.

Variants are the authoritative local versions of a story. They are only local stories because folklore is oral and cannot be transmitted accurately. Remakes and reboots are not authoritative but compete with other versions of the same story. This is possible because Hollywood movies are mechanically reproduced, i.e., perfect copies.

As you can see, Newitz has tried to argue an analogy between things that are opposites, not the same. This would be incredibly stupid were it not for the self-serving goal of justifying io9 puff pieces for remakes and reboots, rather than making an honest argument.

There is also the truism that nothing is original. A truism is a statement that is true but trivial. This is a truism because the real question is not, was this story completely unlike what has come before? (Never, of course.)

The real question is, are the elements from other stories and life put together in novel ways? This kind of originality is quite common to some degree even in derivative stories. A few stories are highly original. Often these begin a subgenre, or even a whole genre of stories, that imitate them. Remakes and reboots, by recycling even the names, character, plots and themes are not even as original as derivative stories. But, like Shakespeare, they have still have as much originality as the novelty of their dialogue allows. In practice, we know that most are not really very original.

The claim that Buffy is the same story as Dracula is of course BS. Mina Harker plays the role of an unfaithful wife whose very blood is corrupted by her adultery (think syphilis.) Buffy is not Mina. This is not just obtuse, it's a flagrant imposition.

Lastly there is an element of faux-populism in associating the desire for originality with Modernism. Shakespeare may have recycled plots, but he (almost)* never recycled verse or prose dialogue. Unlike most Hollywood remakes and reboots, his new dialogue was both highly original and a great improvement. Very few other Elizabethan and Jacobean (or Restoration) playwrights remade or rebooted plays. Nor was there any demand for remakes and reboots. Instead there was a relentless demand for as much novelty as could found. Now that was four hundred years ago. So much for the Modernist innovation in valuing originality!

There are cases in drama where originality was devalued, mediaeval mystery and morality plays or (I think) Chinese opera. That has nothing to do with Newitz' thesis.

Obviously nothing Newitz wrote was worth reading, much less the labor of rebutting. But it is irritating to see such shameless BS held up as rational thought.

*Shakespeare directly quoted Marlowe in As You Like It, so there's at least one exception.

Deadline has a rundown of Starz's upcoming shows, including this pertaining to Incursion:

Spartacus creator Steven S. DeKnight, who is under an overall deal at Starz, is already working on his next project for the pay cable network. “Steven just returned from Hawaii where he shot ‘proof of concept’ for a show he’s developed,” Albrecht said. That show is sci-fi drama Incursion, which Albrecht described as “Band of Brothers meets Halo” and involves a lot of creatures.

^
Never cared for Spartacus, but I'm still liking the sound of Incursion. That may be one of the most promising sounding sci-fi shows in dev that I've vaguely heard about, up there with RHW's Defender.

As you can see, Newitz has tried to argue an analogy between things that are opposites, not the same. This would be incredibly stupid were it not for the self-serving goal of justifying io9 puff pieces for remakes and reboots, rather than making an honest argument.

Click to expand...

Just so.

Nobody ever retold a folk epic so they could continue to milk the name recognition value of a licensed or owned IP (like Bay's Transformers movies) or to actually retain the rights to said IP (like the recent X-Men and Spider-Men movies).

I never got into Spartacus either but Incursion sounds like it could be worth checking out. The article says they shot proof of concept in Hawaii, I hope that's where they're filming the whole thing. I love Hawaii as a setting. maybe they can get Josh Holloway for the lead role. Giving the ladies some eye candy didn't hurt Spartacus any.